"According to the records of
the Civil Service Commission, between 1936 and 1959 a total of 1,391
government officials studied at academic institutions in the United
States, England, and France, or were otherwise trained there, and
subsequently requested that their credentials be evaluated by the
CSC for salary purposes. Of these officials, 927 studied in the
United States, and 330 in England. Nearly a thousand (968) were
foreign graduate students, and over 60 per cent of the total group
studied education, medicine, engineering, science, and business.
This group, equal to about one-half of 1 per cent of the present
civil service, comprises an impressive collection of technicians and
professional specialists. It is reinforced by hundreds of domestic
graduates, some of them exceptionally well educated, and several
hundred Thais currently studying abroad, or returned since 1959."

"Marriage is not conceived
of as a partnership, a union of hearts, following a prevalent
American view, but rather as a junction of complementary functions
each by and large exclusive of each other. The union is not
necessarily based on love, and a girl, especially in the provinces
can be made a wife by giving a large enough sum of money to her and
her parents. The girl on her side will probably not think that
marriage is supposed to be the love of her life but rather to give
her security, status, and the opportunity to exercise her functions
as mother and mistress of the house."

"The
Armed Forced Research Institute of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS) was
founded as the result of a mutual agreement between the Thai and
United States Governments to battle a widespread cholera epidemic in
Bangkok and Thonburi (ธนบุรี) during
1958-1959. Scientists, researchers and physicians under the
leadership of the Royal Thai Army Medical Department’s Institute of
Pathology, the United States Army’s Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research (WRAIR) and the US Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2
(NAMRU-2) worked together to counter the cholera epidemic. Later,
the Thai and US Governments recognized the importance of the medical
cooperative effort and agreed on continuing joint medical research
efforts. AFRIMS then began a series of transformations with expanded
missions.

In 1959, the SEATO Cholera
Research Laboratory was established in Bangkok as proposed by the
5th meeting of the SEATO Council.

In 1960, the SEATO Cholera Research
Laboratory in Bangkok changed its name to the SEATO Medical Research
Laboratory as proposed by the US party in the 6th meeting of the
SEATO Council. The Letter of Approval and the Letter of Agreement
with respect to the said transformation was exchanged between the
Thai and the US Governments on December 23, 1960.

In 1961, the Royal Thai Ministry of Defense
approved the establishment of the SEATO Medical Research Project
Office, by the order of Ministry of Defense (Specific), dated
September 26, 1961, effective October 1961 under the Supervision of
MG Phung Phintuyothin [พึ่ง พินทุโยธิน], the first Director of the
SEATO Medical Research Laboratory and Felsenfeld [Oscar Felsenfeld,
1906 - 1978], the first Commander of the United Medical Component.

The SEATO Medical Research Laboratory was
renamed the Armed Forces Research of Medical Sciences (AFRIMS) on
June 30, 1977 as a result of the dissolution of SEATO."

"Low
morale is a potent cause of slackness and poor work, and an
important contribution to low morale in Thailand’s civil service is
the level of pay. For comparable jobs in private employment,
salaries are typically two to three times as high. It is therefore
not surprising that many of the ablest of the nation’s young men and
women tend to shun government employment, or that many leave the
civil service at the first opportunity. Only the long-standing
prestige of government service, and the extra security it offers,
enable it to attract and hold as many good persons as it does.

Conditions were very
different before the war. Then, government salaries were close to
those in industry and commerce.

The inflation of the war
and post-war years created a serious disparity. A cost-of-living
adjustment made in 1952 attempted to bring civil service salaries
into line with those in the private sector, but since then the
latter have doubled and tripled. Since the civil servant’s basic
salary is only about 10% of his total pay including the
cost-of-living adjustment and since his retirement pension is based
upon that 10%, being in most cases not more than 20% of the total
adjusted salary, a very real problem is created for officials
retiring at the mandatory retirement age of 60.

An attack on this problem
of low pay should not be delayed. For as the nation's economic
development gathers momentum, opportunities for employment at good
wages in private enterprise are going to multiply. Therefore
inaction can only make matters worse.

Rather than make piecemeal
adjustments to the present salary structure, the Government should
undertake a thorough study of the whole problem. The study should
lead to the preparation of a plan to standardize and adjust salaries
that would take into account salary levels in the private sector and
also recognize the growing need to provide adequate pay to attract
the engineers, economists, statisticians, educators and
administrators the Government needs now and will need increasingly
in the future.

A conscious effort to
reduce the redundant number of government employees could help
hasten the day when more adequate salaries will be paid. Positions
vacated by resignation, death or retirement should not be filled
if—as would often be the case—the work could be assigned to the
remaining employees without overburdening them. Moreover, as the
Government has to provide new services, employees with the needed
qualifications should be transferred from overstaffed agencies or
from offices whose work is of low priority. To ensure that this is
done, it is recommended that a central office be established to
undertake the management analysis necessary to develop a program of
administrative reforms. Its most advantageous location would be in
the Office of the Prime Minister and its work should be closely tied
with the budget process. The necessary staff, both for this office
and for representatives to be assigned to the different Ministries,
would have to be trained. This office should study the re-grouping
of government functions, the precise nature of work objectives and
the existing assignment of work, and should prepare plans to deal
with these matters."

Später schreibt Thanpuying
Maniratana Bunnag (ท่านผู้หญิงมณีรัตน์ บุนนาค, 1922 - 2000) einen
patriotischen Text dazu unter dem Titel แผ่นดินของเรา
("Our Motherland"). "The composition was made at the request of Her
Majesty the Queen who felt that more music for patriotism wouldn't hurt anyone;
she saw it fitting to have this sweet tune do a few extra notes for the
country. To Her Majesty, a gentle patriotic tune would do a better job of
persuasion than a hard-boiled march. Thanpuying Maniratana said, "While His
Majesty, at Her Majesty's request, was playing 'Alexandra' on the piano,
adding the middle and end movements and filling up the entire 32 bars, I
listened and made up the lyrics right then and there."" [Quelle:
http://thailand.prd.go.th/ebook/king_music/melodies.html. -- ZUgriff am
2013-12-09]

"A year after his time in
the forestry service, Khamsing began publishing short stories in the
newspaper Piyamit (Thai:
ปิยะมิตร) [Dear Friend]. Other
publications where his work appeared include: Chiwit, Sangkhomsat
Parithat, Khwuan Chai and Chathurat.This corresponded
with the relatively free press Thailand enjoyed during the years of
1955-58. Due to the growing political power-struggle between CIA
backed Phao Sriyanond and Pentagon supported Sarit Thanarat Thai
writers and intellectuals were free to express their ideas. This
atmosphere of free press quickly burgeoned after the September 16,
1957 coup that drove Phao and Plaek Pibulsonggram into exile.
Anderson argues that Khamsing's Fáa Bɔ̀ Kân [ฟ้าบ่กั้น],
a collection of many of his stories originally
published in Piyamit, best symbolizes this period of intellectual
freedom. Shortly after the publication of Fáa Bɔ̀ Kân, Sarit
seized power and established an absolute regime. Sarit's regime
instated strict censorship, ending the period of free-thought
through imprisonment, exile and execution (only one or two cases) of
Thai intellectuals, writers, and progressives.[18]
This crackdown on progressives and independent press forced Khamsing
to abandon writing for a number of years, during which time he
returned to Khorat to his farm."

"Because of the looseness of
the social structure, respect and deference do not necessarily imply
obedience, although outward disobedience is almost unthinkable. In
case of non-compliance action simply peters out. . . . The culture
places great value on internal equanimity, upon being choey
or having a "cool heart [ใจเย็น]."
This enables one to take life as it comes, without strain or
excitement. To be choey is to be without anxiety, to rest at
ease, survey and weigh the situation, accept cheerfully what must
be, and then take advantage of the circumstances, including the
stupidity of others. The maintenance of a "cool heart" is supported
by an attitude epitomized in the common phrase mai
pen rai,
meaning "it’s of no importance," "never mind." The expression is
more than a phrase; it symbolizes a defense mechanism for minimizing
events which might otherwise disturb a "cool heart.""

"Pending
operation of this Charter, if the Prime Minister finds desirable to
prevent or suppress an act giving rise to the subversion of the
national security or Throne or an act contributable to the
impairment, disturbance or threat against the internal or external
peace of the Kingdom, the Prime Minister, upon resolution of the
Council of Ministers, shall be bestowed with the power to issue any
order or to perform any act whatsoever. Such order or act shall be
deemed lawful.

Upon issuance of any order or performance of any
act in virtue of the foregoing paragraph, the Prime Minister shall
inform the Assembly thereof."

1) In times of war or in conflict with royal
enemies, the government has the power to burn homes if deemed
necessary. If evidence of enemy activity is apparent after the army
has retreated, then the power extends to complete destruction.

2) In order to build and maintain stability
the military leadership has the power to chart the national
territory and re-arrange houses, villages, towns and cities as
necessary to fight enemy activity."

"Phra Mongkhonthepmuni
(Sodh Candasaro; 10 October 1884 – 3 February 1959) (Thai:
พระมงคลเทพมุนี (สด จนฺทสโร)), the late
abbot of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen (วัดปากน้ำภาษีเจริญ),
was the founder of the Thai Dhammakaya meditation school in 1914.

Birth to
ordination

Phra Mongkhonthepmuni was born as Sodh Mikaewnoi (สด
มีแก้วน้อย) on 10 October 1884 to the family of a rice
merchant in Amphoe Song Phi Nong (สองพี่น้อง),
Suphanburi (สุพรรณบุรี),
a province 100 km to the west of Bangkok. At the beginning of July 1906, aged
twenty-two, he was ordained at Wat Songpinong (วัดสองพี่น้อง)
in his hometown and was given the Pāli name Candasaro (จนฺทสโร).

Dhamma studies

As a student, Phra Mongkhonthepmuni was a disciple of two
traditions, unlike most of his contemporaries, and studied under masters of the
oral meditation tradition as well as experts in scriptural analysis.[1]
He started to study meditation on the day following his ordination, and after
his first rainy season, travelled far and wide in Thailand in order to study
with all the renowned masters of the time.[2]

Dhamma
practice

He later moved to Bangkok to study the Scriptures. He
practiced in each school but was not satisfied. In the eleventh year of his
ordination, he stayed at Wat Bangkuvieng, Nonthaburi Province (นนทบุรี),
during the rainy season. There, he began to practice meditation by himself using
the Visuddhimagga.

He reflected to himself that he had
been practising meditation for eleven long years and had still not understood
the core of knowledge which the Lord Buddha had taught. Thus, on the full-moon
day of September 1918, he sat himself down in the main shrine hall of Wat
Bangkuvieng, resolving not to waver in his practice of sitting meditation,
whatever might seek to disturb his single-mindedness. It is claimed that while
meditating far into the night, he allowed his mind to go deeper and deeper
through the pathway at centre of the sphere, until he discovered the dhammakāya
(ธรรมกาย, dharmakaya), the most refined of the inner
bodies, which is eternal and free from defilement.

Teaching

Phra Mongkhonthepmuni devoted the rest of his life to
teaching and furthering the depth of knowledge of this meditation technique. It
is this technique which has come to be known as 'Dhammakaya meditation' (i.e.,
meditation for attaining the dhammakāya). In 1916, Phramongkolthepmuni was
appointed abbot of Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, and there he devoted his time to
researching the insights of Dhammakāya meditation and refined the technique, to
make it more systematic, through experimenting with the ways the meditation
could best be applied for the common good. During an exceptionally long ministry
of over half-a-century, Phramongkolthepmuni was unflagging in teaching all
comers the way to attain dhammakaya, with activities nearly every day of the
week. He recognised the need to open up and redevelop the oral tradition of
meditation teaching, which was becoming disorganised and rare in Thai Buddhism.

He provided the opportunity, with the
technique, for meditators to verify for themselves, in their firsthand
experience, the success of the technique. Indeed, Phramongkolthepmuni would
challenge others to meditate in order that they might verify for themselves the
claims which he made about the technique. It was the response to this need which
led to the innovative building at Wat Paknam of the 'meditation workshop'.
Phramongkolthepmuni declared that this workshop should be kept in use by
meditators for twenty-four hours a day, day and night, and selected from amongst
his followers the most gifted of the meditators. Their 'brief' was to devote
their lives to meditation research for the common good of society.

Phra Mongkhonthepmuni was also the
first Thai preceptor to ordain a westerner as a Buddhist monk. He ordained the
Englishman William Purfurst (a.k.a. Richard Randall) with the monastic name
'Kapilavaddho Bhikkhu' at Wat Paknam in 1954[3]
and Kapilavaddho returned to Britain to found the English Sangha Trust in 1956.[4][5]

Death

Phra Mongkhonthepmuni was taken ill in 1956. He brought the
work of the meditation workshop to an end by dismissing all of the meditators
except four or five of the most devoted nuns including Chandra Khonnokyoong (จันทร์
ขนนกยูง, 1909 - 2000)and Thongsuk Samdaengpan (1900 -
1963). It was these nuns who were heirs to the oral tradition of Dhammakāya when
Phramongkolthepmuni died in 1959, aged seventy-five."

"There is no sign on the
innocent-looking entrance to the Heng Lak Rung, which has a registered
capacity of 8,000 smokers. It nestles next door to an ancient Buddhist
temple on the hot, bustling New Road and appears from the street to be
only a smallrestaurant.

But above the restaurant are four
spacious floors, each a crowded maze of partitioned cubicles. In these
quiet, poppy-scented labyrinths, customers enjoy an average of 10 pipes
apiece nightly at a cost of about 10 baht, or 50 cents - often more than
a quarter of a day's wages.

Five thousand coolies use the den as
their home - sleeping, eating and bathing on the premises. They leave in
the morning for work, return in the evening, gulp a meagre meal, perhaps
gamble and talk for a while and then, lulled by a couple of hours of
unhurried smoking, fall asleep on the plain wooden floors of their
cubicles.

"These unhappy coolies escape from their brutish world
over their few pipes here," says a Bangkok doctor, who readily concedes
that the practice shortens their lives. "Opium makes them gentler,
kinder, happier." He predicts the coolies will turn to heroin with its
more violent effects when the ban is enforced."

In einer Rede vor der American Association erklärt
Außenminister Thanat Khoman (ถนัด
คอมันตร์, 1914 - ), dass die
Revolutionsregierung "took great pains to show its
loyalty and reverence" to the King. "If we look back at our national
history, we can very well see that this country works better, and prospers,
under an authority. Not a tyrannical authority, but a unifying authority
around which all elements of the nation can rally."
[Zitiert in: Chronicle of Thailand : headline news since 1946 / ed. in chief
Nicholas Grossman. -- Bangkok : Bangkok Post, 2010. -- ISBN
978-981-4217-12-5.-- S. 103]

"When
his services with the King ended Luang Pradit [หลวงประดิษฐไพเราะ
/ Sorn Silpanleng - ศร ศิลปบรรเลง, , 1881 - 1954]
established himself with his family in the rambling old house behind
which his son has now built his theater. There the gentle, almost
ethereal musician received students from all over the country; young
men and women who, bearing a gift of rice or fruit, came to sit at
his feet and study his technique.

The
old man received no pay from his students, but kept up his school
and his family with offerings presented at funerals, weddings,
tamboons [ทำบุญ

- Verdienst-tun]
and other ceremonies at which his troupe of young people played or
danced.

We happened to be visiting him years ago,
when a young man with no more baggage than the shorts and shirt he
wore, the pakaoma [ผ้าขาวม้า] in which he carried his gift of rice
and the flute he carried in his hand, arrived to offer himself as a
student. The old man received the gift and acknowledged the youth’s
obeisance absently and motioned him without a word to take his place
among the other students practicing on the porch. It was understood
that the boy would eat at the family kitchen and find a place to
sleep somewhere on the compound with the others."

Klausner, William <1929 - >: A memorandum
on Ministry of Interior community development pilot projects. --
Bangkok, 1959-05-04

"These FEOs [Fundamental Education Organizers at
present under Ministry of Education’s supervision have found their
position very difficult to maintain. In quite a few areas they have
not been able to enlist the Governor’s and other officials’ support.
. . . Vis-à-vis the villagers, the FEOs have
no real status especially if viewed against the prestige of those
Ministry of Interior officials from the Governor down. . . . The
FEOs are not in the line of authority that the headman has been
subject to. The Ministry of Interior officials are the ones who have
the power, respect of the villagers and a long history of contact
with them. It is they who are responsible for the administration and
the development of rural areas."

Government and international aid processes cannot
often be reduced to the simplicity of straightforward business operations. In
many instances the difficulties of institution-building at national levels
or integration within existing national institutions will remain, and the
operations themselves will encompass greater complexity of purpose and
action and more widespread involvement. A German Junior Technical Institute,
however, was one project which came close to the objective of building a
national institution. It shows promise of success in its role and is
therefore worthy of study.

In 1959 the German government established a technical
training school in Thailand, working within the Ministry of Education. The
purpose of the school was to train Thai youth in engineering skills to about
the same level as would be held by a German technician who had undertaken
apprenticeship in the engineering trade.

The school is small with a total student body of 250
boys who undertake either a three-year or five-year course. The annual
output is about fifty boys, and so far the unofficial policy has been to
assume responsibility for placing all graduates in employment with foreign
firms or the Thai government. The school has stated unequivocally that it
would never train more students than it was certain Thai industry could
absorb.

The equipment in the school is outstanding. The
private German firms supplying it obtain special taxation exemptions from
the German government, and the USOM [United States Operations Mission] Vocational Training Officer stated
categorically that such an investment in training machinery would be “too
expensive for the United States government to emulate in an aid mission.”
The enterprise is German-controlled, and all instruction until very recently
was given solely by Germans. At the present time some Thai educators are
being employed as instructors in aspects of theory. The ultimate plan is that
the school will become solely Thai; but, as was stated quite definitely by
German teachers, there was no hurry about this changeover. Germans were
prepared to stay as long as necessary, “even into the next generation if we
are needed and wanted.”

Initially there was some difficulty in encouraging
pupils to attend. In 1962, however, after three years of operation, some
1,000 applicants competed for 100 places. The Thai government has now asked
the German government to duplicate the entire school at Khon Kaen [ขอนแก่น], a
provincial town in the northeast plateau, which is also to be the locale for
the new Khon Kaen Institute of Technology [สถาบันเทคโนโลยีขอนแก่น].

By whatever yardstick is used, the German school is an
extraordinarily smooth-running, efficient venture. It has already made its
mark in the area that matters most—that is, it now has an ex-student body
actually operating within Thai industry, rather than a disillusioned coterie
of misemployed smarting under unfulfilled promises. To date relations with
the Thai government and the Ministry of Education seem good, in that the
school has been accorded the unusual honor of being asked to expand its
activity.

The school has had its problems, of course, most of
them connected with German personnel. The first director was sent home
because “he could not get along with the Thai.” Unfortunate as this may have
been, such a condition is far from uncommon, and the real test is whether
such poor relations can be detected by the foreign authority and appropriate
action taken. The school also found it difficult to persuade its German
instructors with families to stay for more than two years because a German
language school for their children was not available in Bangkok.

The biggest single problem has been language, and the
current director felt strongly that in the future all instructors should
take one year of language training before coming to Thailand. By and large,
the language problem was more complicated than in the United Nations, since
English was the school’s only lingua franca. Book translation, for example,
had to be in a German-English-Thai cycle. In general, however, it seemed
that these more or less unavoidable stresses were fairly easily absorbed by
the school, and there was certainly no impression that operations were being hampered
in any appreciable degree. In particular it was noticeable that the turnover
of instructors had small effect on the school program.

This seemingly smooth operation did not just happen.
The German school is an autonomous institution with a modus operandi that
is relatively stable and well known to all participants. The critical
element is that the operation is based upon the use of machines that remain
essentially unchanged, give continuity relative to operations, and demand
certain fixed levels of knowledge which the German instructors have in full
measure. Allied with this, institutional autonomy gives a skilled management
not only day-to-day control over operations and personnel but also control over
policy and the maintenance of continuity in policy and policy-making. The
school does not betray that readily observable un-sureness of where it is
going, so marked in TUFEC [Thailand and UNESCO Fundamental Education Center]. Neither does the “change of jockey” give rise to
changes of direction in this machine-dominated operation. Equally striking
is the absence of bureaucratic control and interference. The local German
executives seem to have the autonomy normally associated with, say,
a private business or private college in the United States. This was evident
in the freedom, speed, and ease with which programs were adjusted to meet
indigenous needs.

Above all, the operation of the school as a whole is
related to the present needs of the Thai economy. It does not exceed demands or
even seek at this time to stimulate them but merely to satisfy them, and
perhaps provide concepts that might be emulated. A highly particularistic
operation, it is also an exceedingly simple one not only in what it does in
the Thai milieu but also in how it goes about its daily tasks. Its activity
is not cluttered with theories of social and cultural change.

The German school is an example of autonomous
institution-building within the Thai bureaucratic structure, is concerned
with simple technical operations and is based upon the machine. A legitimate
question, however, is how far can operations of this type be extended. At
what stage, for example, does the relatively simple machine-dominated
operation have to confront indigenous cultural or economic values which may
conflict, or how far can an alien institution, even when highly successful,
intrude into indigenous structures? The director of the school himself
expressed doubts as to how far operations could expand. A very large-scale, effective,
autonomous German operation (which, incidentally, is not contemplated) could
hardly be assimilated by Thailand without undue German influence being
applied at many levels, especially on the level of industrial development.
On the other hand, small autonomous operations tend to exert small influence
beyond their own fairly limited spheres. The director commented that already
his small school “was like an alien island” within the Thai educational
structure, and he was unsure if the school’s influence extended very far
beyond its annual output of pupils. If it were to extend its influence, at
some time it would have to embark on a process of diffusion, like the
original goal of the Pilot Project at Cha Cheong Sao. But the idea of German
skills being integrated within the Thai educational structure en masse
seemed to appall all six specialists at the German school. They felt there
was insufficient demand for engineering capabilities in Thailand to prompt
major growth, although they conceded that in a generation or two things
might change. And would the output of the German school help bring these
changes about? This “is something that is beyond the purview of this
generation.” To the German staff at the Institute the idea of creating a
pilot project for an alien type of education and diffusing it over the
entire educational system of the kingdom—all within, say, a period of ten
years—seemed hardly worthy of discussion.

Insofar as one relatively small operation can be taken
as an example, the German Institute highlights two important points. It
illustrates the assets of institution-building but also the weaknesses of an
alien enterprise which, no matter how successfully it functions, is limited
in how far it can extend its operations and influence. At some stage the
nation itself must pick up the ball and run."

"Sodsai
Pantoomkomol (Thai:
สดใส พันธุมโกมล,
pronounced [sòt.sǎj
pʰān.tʰūm.kōː.mōn])
néeVanijvadhana (วานิชวัฒนา,
[wāː.nít.wáttʰanāː];
born 18 March 1934 in Bangkok, Thailand) is a Thai actress and teacher of
dramatic arts. Also known as Sondi Sodsaifrom her acting career in the United States during her
studies, she returned to Thailand to become a lecturer and associate professor
at the Faculty of Arts of Chulalongkorn University (จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย),
where she founded the Dramatic Arts Department, the first such school in the
country. She produced numerous theatrical works throughout her career, and was
named National Artist (ศิลปินแห่งชาติ)
in 2011.

Biography

Sodsai Vanijvadhana was born on 18
March 1934 in Bangkok, Thailand to Subhajaya Vanijvadhana, professor and head of
the Biology Department at Chulalongkorn University, and Prayongsi Vanijvadhana
(née Laksanasut). She graduated Bachelor of Arts with honors from Chulalongkorn
University, and subsequently received a Fulbright scholarship to study teaching
English as a foreign language in the United States. However, with encouragement
from her advisor Prince Prem Purachatra, she asked to study dramatic arts
instead. She enrolled at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where
she caught up on drama courses including acting, directing and playwriting. She
was often selected for leading parts in plays, from which she became noticed,
and was subsequently invited to appear on The
Tonight Show, received a record offer with
Liberty Records, which was released as Sondi, and
appeared in
Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer.
She transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles upon the suggestion
of her advisers, to be able to pursue more career opportunities. She was then
offered a seven-year contract with Fox Studios, which she declined, settling for
a two-year scholarship and training program instead.[1]During her acting career in
Hollywood she was a semi-regular on ABC's
Adventures in Paradise, with Gardner McKay, and
also guest starred on CBS's The Lucy–Desi
Comedy Hour. She represented Thailand in the
Miss Universe 1959 beauty pageant, where she won the Miss Friendship Award.[2]She went by the alias "Sondi Sodsai" in
her acting career because her last name "was too difficult for foreigners to
pronounce."[1][3]

Upon completing her studies,
Sodsai returned to Thailand and became a lecturer at her
alma mater, Chulalongkorn University's Faculty
of Arts. At the time, formal education in dramatic arts did not exist in
Thailand. Sodsai pioneered the field, establishing the Faculty's Department of
Dramatic Arts in 1970. She developed curricula based on the theories and
practices of Western theater, and helped lay out the foundations of drama
education in both tertiary and secondary institutions, as well as in
professional circles. Of the initial difficulties of establishing the school,
she noted in an interview of how she and her students lacked a theater in which
to perform: "We were like nomads, we performed under the trees, on the verandah,
in the attic. Practically wherever they allowed us."[1][3]

Sodsai produced many works,
writing and directing numerous plays, as well as editing, acting and composing.
Her plays include Yankee Don't Go Home, Tukkata Kaew ("Glass
doll"),
Yot Pratthana
("Dearest"),
Koet Pen Tua Lakhon
("Born a play character"),
Phu Phae–Phu Chana
("Loser–winner"), Phrai Nam,
Khon Di Thi Sechuan
("Samaritan at Sichuan") and her latest production
Lam Di ("the Good Interpreter"), which was
released in 2009. She translated and presented works of Western drama, including
The Glass Menagerieand Hedda Gabler,
for the Thai audience. She also directed television dramas, winning a Mekhala
Award for her 1984 adaptation of Chart Korbjitti's (ชาติ กอบจิตติ, 1954 - )
novel Kham Phiphaksa
((คำพิพากษา - "The Judgement", 1981), which she applied Western technics in
directing.[3][4]

Sodsai was married to Trong
Pantoomkomol, former head of the Orthopedics Department at the Faculty of
Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, with three children. In recognition of her
contributions to the field, Sodsai was named a National Artist in performing
arts (theatrical and television plays) for 2011.[3]Thailand's first playwriting competition,
the Sodsai Award, and Chulalongkorn University's Sodsai Pantoomkomol Center for
Dramatic Arts, which opened in 2011, are named in her honor.[4][5]Many of her students have gone on
to become key figures in the show business, and
Ying Thai Magazine has called her the most
influential woman in the Thai entertainment industry.[6]"

Faris, Donald K. <1898 - 1974>: Community
development training in Thailand / prepared for the Government of
Thailand by Donald K. Faris. -- New York : United Nations, Commissioner
for Technical Assistance, Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, 1959-08-11. --
27 pages ; 28 cm. -- (Report / United Nations Programme of Technical
Assistance)

"As the team members [i.e.
Fundamental Education Organizers] become acquainted with the
villagers, they begin to realize that work of various kinds has been
going on in the villages long before their arrival, and they must
learn to recognize and respect the considerable knowledge
accumulated by the villagers themselves over the years. This
sometimes necessitates a radical adjustment in the attitudes of the
students before they are ready to work with people."

"When increased production
is discussed with villagers, a question frequently raised is: "where
can we sell our products and how much can we get for them?" . . .
farmers claimed that when they had increased their production of
peanuts, loc, cassava and the like, in the past, markets were soon
glutted."

"Talduwe Ratugama
Rallage Weris Singho better known as Talduwe Somarama
(1915–1962) shot and killed Solomon Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister
of Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) in 1959. He later openly converted
to Christianity, just weeks prior to being hanged in the Welikada
gallows.

Early life

Somarama was born on August 27, 1915, to Iso Hamy and
Ratugama Rallage Dieris Appuhamy. He was robed when he was 14 on January 20,
1929, and received his schooling at Talduwa Ihala School. He allegedly received
his higher ordination in Kandy on June 25, 1936.

The
Assassination

Allegedly drafted in to the conspiracy by Mapitigama
Buddharakkitha (1921−1967) , the chief incumbent of
the Kelaniya Raja Maha Vihara (කැලණිය රජමහා විහාරය),[1]
Somarama reluctantly consented to assassinate the Prime Minister, "for the
greater good of his country, race and religion". Although Buddharakkitha
attributed Bandaranaike's failure to aggressively pursue the Nationalist reforms
as the motive to eliminate him, the real reason appeared to be the Prime
Minister's refusal to award business deals, in particular a shipping contract,
to a company floated by the Chief Priest, Mapitigama Buddharakkitha.[1]

The date was set to September 25,
1959, when Somarama was to visit the Prime Minister at his home and shoot him at
point blank range.[2]
His saffron robes gave him free access to 'Tintagel', the private residence of
Bandaranaike, in Rosmead Place, Colombo. As the Premier commenced his routine
meetings with the public, Somarama waited in patience for his turn. When the
monk's presence was announced to him, Bandaranaike rose to greet him in the
traditional Buddhist manner. The assassin then pulled out the revolver hidden in
his robes and fired at the prostrate Prime Minister. Somarama was injured in
firing between himself and the Prime Minister's bodyguards.

The wounded Premier was rushed to
hospital and died the following day in spite of a six-hour surgery by the
country's most skilled surgeons. In his message to the nation from his bed in
the Merchant's Ward of the General Hospital in Colombo, Bandaranaike referred to
his unknown assassin "as a foolish man dressed in the robes of a monk", but
requested that the authorities "show compassion to this man and not try to wreak
vengeance on him."

Somarama then faced trial, along with
four other involved in the conspiracy. It was a hopeless case, and in spite of a
resourceful defense the jury unanimously found Somarama guilty of the capital
offense. Before sentencing him to death, the trial judge, Justice T.S. Fernando,
QC, CBE, told Somarama he had a "streak of conscience as he did not attend court
in his saffron robes." The chief conspirator, Mapitigama Buddharakkitha and H.
P. Jayawardena, a businessman closely associated with him, were found guilty of
conspiracy to murder. Bandaranaike had suspended capital punishment, but after
his death the government had it restored. In an apparent blunder by the
draftsman, the law re-establishing the death penalty failed to include
conspiracy to murder. As a consequence, while Somarama would hang, the two chief
conspirators escaped with life sentences.

Somarama was hanged on 7 July 1962. He
gave up his robes a fortnight before his hanging and, two days before his
execution, was baptized as a Christian by an Anglican priest.[3]
Prison officials said that this was so that he could seek "the forgiveness that
the Buddhist religion does not grant."[4]
Journalists in Ceylon, however, suggested a different motive: to kill a fellow
Buddhist was a sin, which he had committed by killing Bandaranaike, but by
converting he would spare the gaolers and hangmen from committing the same sin."

1) There can be no quarrel
with the basic proposition, posed in the papers circulated with
CA–1333, that the US Government must work with authoritarian
military governments in the less developed countries of Free Asia
and Africa. As the Department has pointed out, “authoritarianism
will remain the norm in Free Asia for a long period.” This being the
case, the problem of explaining to the American people and to
friendly nations which are not sympathetic toward an authoritarian
form of government why we support such governments becomes a matter
of public relations, not of policy. We need not, for example, feel
self-conscious about our support of an authoritarian government in
Thailand based almost entirely on military strength. In addition to
the generalized guide lines advocated in paragraph 7, pp. 23–4 of
the study “Political Implications of Afro-Asian Military Takeovers”3
and aside from the practical matter of Thailand’s not being ready
for a truly democratic form of government, it can be pointed out
that the United States derives political support from the Thai
Government to an extent and degree which it would be hard to match
elsewhere. Furthermore, the generally conservative nature of Thai
military and governmental leaders and of long-established
institutions (monarchy, Buddhism) furnish a strong barrier against
the spread of Communist influence. Moreover, the Thai military rule
does not weigh onerously on the people. Many of the individual
liberties which we commonly associate with our form of government
and find denied under authoritarian regimes, such as freedom of
speech and religion, the right to own property, etc., flourish in
Thailand to a remarkable degree; and Marshal Sarit shows his
sensitivity to what he believes is public opinion in many ways.

[...]

4) The Department’s
concern over “second stage revolutions,” stemming from disregard for
economic development and the stifling of opposition groups, would
also appear inapplicable at the present stage to Thailand. Sarit’s
interest in and appetite for economic development needs to be
constantly damped down rather than whetted. Opposition groups of the
type described by the Department—labor, students, intelligentsia,
dissident younger officer groups—are, with the exception of the
last-named, of no immediate significance as potential leaders of
“secondary revolutions;” and any revolution staged at this time by
dissident officers in Thailand would follow tradition and produce
only surface change.

One note of warning needs
to be sounded with regard to the Department’s assertion—with which I
agree—that “the complexity of the developmental process requires
that a military regime utilize civilian competence to the utmost. …”5
In Thailand Sarit appears to be well aware of this necessity and has
mustered in one grouping or another the best civilian brains the
country has to offer. Furthermore, the civilian bureaucracy remains
intact. Nevertheless, Sarit’s reliance on these civilian advisers
has been a major irritant in his relations with his military cohorts
who, having supported Sarit in his drive to supreme power, resent
his reliance on civilian advisers in furthering the economic
development of Thailand.

It is not my purpose here
to whitewash Marshal Sarit, to ascribe to him virtues he does not
possess or to make the obviously false claim that graft and
corruption have been eliminated in Thailand never to return. I
believe, however, that it is fair to say that Sarit’s concepts and
actions as we perceive them approach the Department’s definition of
the “happy medium" from the standpoint of US interests as a
situation which encompasses “a military regime ‘civilianized’ to the
greatest extent possible and headed by a military leader who saw
security and development in perspective and thereby evidenced
political leadership of the type required in a developing society.”

[...]

6) [...]

The principal
disadvantages we face in Thailand are precisely those which the
Department foresees as the possible long range concomitant of
authoritarian government—a stifling of democratic values and
parliamentary procedures. Sarit’s “revolution” of October 1958 and
its aftermath unquestionably constitute a setback for the trend,
however faint, toward a more democratic form of government which had
its origins in the 1932 coup d’etat. Nevertheless, as the
Department’s paper in Thailand correctly points out, there is
growing in Thailand a political consciousness among urban Thai and,
I venture to add, elsewhere in the countryside as well. The various
components of this mission—USOM [United
States Operations Mission],
JUSMAG [Joint
United States Military Advisory Group]
and USIS [United States
Information Service]
as well as the Embassy proper—have all played a part in the
furthering of this process. As communications and educational
facilities continue to improve in Thailand and as increasing numbers
of Thai military personnel, government and business leaders and
technicians are exposed to the US and to US habits of thinking,
political consciousness in Thailand will continue to develop. That
the Thai system of government will ever resemble the US system very
closely is questionable but an increasing responsiveness to public
opinion appears inevitable if basic current trends continue. The US
is in a unique position to encourage these trends, the while it
supports a country very favorably disposed toward the US and its
policies and one which does not present us with many of the problems
with which the Department’s instruction is concerned.

"The Jim Thompson
House is a museum in Bangkok. It is a complex of various old
Thai structures that the American businessman Jim Thompson collected
in from all parts of Thailand in the 1950s and 60s. It is one of the
most popular tourist destinations in Thailand.

As Thompson was building his
silk company, he also became a major collector of Southeast Asian
art, which at the time was not well known internationally. He built
a large collection of Buddhist and secular art not only from
Thailand but from Burma, Cambodia and Laos, frequently travelling to
those Countries on buying trips.

In 1958 he began what was
to be the pinnacle of his architectural achievement, a new home to
showcase his art collection. Formed from parts of six antique Thai
houses, his home (completed in 1959) sits on a klong (canal)
across from Bangkrua, where his weavers were then located. Most of
the 19th century houses were dismantled and moved from Ayutthaya,
but the largest - a weaver's house (now the living room) - came from
Bangkuar."

"JASON is an independent group of scientists which
advises the
United States government on matters of science and technology, mostly of a
sensitive military nature. The group was first created as a way to get a younger
generation of scientists—that is, not the older
Los Alamos and MIT
Radiation Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the government. It was
established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members. Its work first
gained public notoriety as the source of the
Vietnam
War's
McNamara Line electronic barrier. Although most of its research is
military-focused, JASON also produced early work on the science of
global warming and
acid rain.[1]
Current unclassified research interests include
health informatics,
cyberwarfare, and
renewable energy.

For administrative purposes, JASON's activities are run
through the
MITRE Corporation, a non-profit corporation in
McLean, Virginia, which contracts with the
Defense Department.

JASON typically performs most of its work during an annual
summer study. Its sponsors include the Department of Defense, the
Department of Energy, and the
U.S. Intelligence Community. Most of the resulting JASON reports are
classified.

The name "JASON" is sometimes explained as an acronym,
standing either for "July August September October November", the months in
which the group would typically meet; or, tongue in cheek, for "Junior Achiever,
Somewhat Older Now". However, neither explanation is correct; in fact, the name
is not an acronym at all. It is a reference to
Jason, a
character from
Greek mythology. The wife of one of the founders (Mildred Goldberger)
thought the name given by the defense department, Project Sunrise, was
unimaginative and suggested the group be named for a hero and his search.

JASON studies have included a now-mothballed system for
communicating with submarines using extremely long radio waves (Project
Seafarer,
Project Sanguine), an astronomical technique for overcoming the atmosphere's
distortion (adaptive
optics), the many problems of missile defense, technologies for verifying
compliance with treaties banning nuclear tests, a 1979 report describing CO2-driven
global warming, and the
McNamara Line's electronic barrier, a system of computer-linked sensors
developed during the Vietnam War which became the precursor to the modern
electronic battlefield.

Out of that program came the idea of a permanent
institution for advanced scientific research, a proposed National Defense
Institute, on behalf of the Department of Defense. Wheeler was offered such a
position by
ARPA's
Herb York but turned it down, having put in the effort to establish Project
137. Murph Goldberger also turned down the request.

However, in December 1959
Marvin Stern, Charlie Townes, Brueckner, Watson, and Goldberger met in Los
Alamos where several of them had been working on nuclear-rocket research and
launched JASON as an ongoing summer study program, with financial and
administrative support supplied by the
Institute for Defense Analyses. In the early 1960s, JASON had about 20
members. By the end of the decade it had grown to over 40 members, with close
ties to the
President's Science Advisory Committee. In the early 1970s the backing
institution for JASON was changed from IDA to
SRI.[8]

The
Vietnam
War had a significant effect on JASON's membership and research focus. A
major initiative of JASON became the
McNamara Line electronic barrier. Some members critical of the war like
Freeman Dyson left, and others directed JASON research into unclassified,
non-military work on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Energy on problems like
global warming and
acid rain.
There arose internal conflict between hawkish JASON members such as
William Happer,
Edward Teller, and
William Nierenberg and others such as
Gordon J. F. MacDonald,
Sid Drell, and
Richard Garwin. Public attention to JASON's involvement in the Vietnam War
led to public criticism and attacks against JASON members; for example,
MacDonald's garage was burned down and Richard Garwin was called a "baby killer.""

"When, on the anniversary of
Vietnam’s independence, I asked Pres. Ngo about his role in it, he
replied that he was but an instrument of the invisible hand of the
Lord. Whether he led the country single-handed or in close
cooperation with divine Providence, there is much about his five
years in office that is almost incredible."